Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
|
Proposed good articles  "Good articles" are articles that are better than other articles, according to many people. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria. This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one article in at a time. Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed. Articles that are better than the good article criteria can be proposed to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. This tool can be used to find the size of an article. |
Joining the talk If you choose to join in the talk about good articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If people think that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may not be allowed to join in any more. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.
|
Proposals for good articles
[change source]To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code, filling out 'page title' and 'reason' with your proposed page's title and why you think this page should be a proposed article: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~
You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.
Mia Love
[change source]
The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.- The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
- The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
- The article is filed in the appropriate category.
- It has at least one interwiki link.
- The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
- There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
- Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.
The article has been expanded, is properly sourced, simplified as much as I could find [feedback always welcome :)], proper cats, no redlinks and thoroughly covers the subject. Please let me know if there's any way I can improve the article! There's often some tricky words that cannot/might require more attention to simplify when it comes to politicians, but I think I tackled most of it down. Thank you for your consideration! :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
[change source]I've transferred the subject's English Wikipedia article (which is currently nominated for GA status and which I am a major contributor to) here after making significant cuts and changes to the language. This is my first time writing an article for simple english Wikipedia, but I put a lot of work into it, so I hope it's worthy of GA status. The article has many sources, and it's just over half as long as the original version. If there's anything you need me to fix, please tell me, and I will fix it as soon as possible! Reverosie (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
1755 Cape Ann earthquake
[change source]I believe it fits the criteria of a good article now, I have done everything suggested by Barras and CountryANDWestern in a PGA review, except for the sentence "A whiskey maker lost some of its...", which i'm not sure how to fix. If you think it's still not ready, please tell me what problems remain. Bakhos Let's talk! 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think even the whiskey-sentence is actually good to go. No objections from my side. I'd say promote to good article. -Barras talk 10:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Great work. Article is well sourced, simple, thorough and meets the other guidelines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)- Support Looks good to me! CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Proposals closed recently
[change source]Delta IV
[change source]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
I see that it fits the criteria of a good article. noob_from2 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready: just at a quick glance I see only two sources, many sections without sources, and a lot of redlinks. These need to be addressed CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with CountryAndWestern. It's also kind of closer to a stub tag than a ga tag. -Barras talk 16:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The Launches, Types sections need a bit expansion. There are quite a few red links. At least 3 cats.--Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 06:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not Promoted no consensus.--Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 09:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.